Timely truth

August 21, 2013

The El Paso Times today chose to make it’s headline article today about city council deciding to spend 139 million dollars to make changes at our airport.

They relegated their articles about city council voting for a property tax increase and council voting to release the ballpark emails to the B section.

I guess we know what they think is important.

Freudian slip?

They also wrote in a section titled “Insight on the Budget”:

“What it means:  Homeowners in El Paso will have to pay the city an average of $841.80, or $283.37 more than last year.”

I’m not their editor but I think that they meant $28.37.

Then again maybe they have decided to be honest and the $283.37 number is a fair projection of what will happen to our taxes with all of the debt we are taking on.

No, wait.  Honesty is a word that does not often come to mind when thinking about the Times.

I think “sloppy” is the word I am looking for.

Muckracker.

Leave a Comment » | Ball park, City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Robbing Peter is robbery

August 21, 2013

Recent developments in the whole tawdry mess that we call the El Paso baseball stadium have exposed another lie that the voters have been told over and over.

We have been told that the ball park will be paid for with hotel occupancy taxes and revenues generated by the operation of the stadium.

Texas state law specifically forbids the city to use property taxes to pay for the stadium because of the way the election was held.

Now because of the cost over-runs, inaccurate planning, poor execution, and maybe lying, the chief financial officer of the city  has just admitted that they will have to dip into general revenue funds to “augment” the stadium project financing.

How can that not mean using property taxes?  We have a budget shortfall this year.  The city manager is proposing an increase in property taxes for next year.

If we don’t have enough money to run this city now and we have to take money out of the general revenue funds for the stadium, how can that not effect property taxes?

Hiding the pea

Saying that they will not be using property tax money is simply a play on words.  Anyone with a household budget knows this.

The city could however:

Increase revenue by raising fees like traffic tickets, permits, service fees and the like.

Cut services so that the money can be spent instead on the ball park.

Do a better job of collecting the fees that they already impose.

Can they use general fund money?

Admittedly I am not a lawyer.  My reading of the Texas law that allowed the creation of the sports venue project is that it requires the voters to authorize specific sources of funds to fund the project.

General revenue sources were not included in that ballot initiative.   Chapter 334.0415 of the Texas Local Government Code appears to give the city the right to use other funds under certain circumstances.  It would appear that the city will do this.

I also think that what we will ultimately see is that the city will carve out parts of the stadium and declare them to be non-ballpark projects.

We have already seen this with the water and sewer changes that are necessary for the stadium.  They are not part of the stadium budget, but instead are being paid  for by the water users in the city.

The south entrance to the stadium ($500,000) is being funded out of the quality of life bonds.

I believe that the city is paying $800,000 for art in the stadium with funding  outside of the stadium funding.

The city staff tried to take $3,000,000 allocated to downtown street projects and wrap it into the stadium construction contract.  Council declined.  City staff decided to spend the money on projects around the stadium anyway.  They will administer it separately.

Don’t be surprised if some other part of the stadium gets carved out and put into the regular city budget.

We deserve better

Brutus

11 Comments | Ball park, City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Risky business

August 20, 2013

A reader sent us this from the prospectus for the ballpark bonds:

The City and the Construction Manager at Risk have not yet negotiated a guaranteed maximum price for the Project. The cost of any project may vary significantly from initial expectations, and there may be a limited amount of capital resources to fund cost overruns.  If cost overruns cannot be financed on a timely basis, the completion of the Project may be delayed until adequate funding is available.  No assurance can be given that the costs of completing the Project will not exceed the amount of available funds or that completion of the Project will not be delayed beyond the current expected opening day.

That statement is from the group trying to sell the bonds.

Would you like to buy some?

What is the status of the bond sales?  Have they been successful?

How is the construction of the ballpark being paid for now, without the bond sales?  Is the money being “borrowed”?  What happens if the bonds do not sell again?

“Standard&Poor’s Ratings Services originally assigned the ‘AA-‘ rating, with a stable outlook, to the series 2013A and series 2013B bonds on Feb. 13, 2013, but the ratings were withdrawn on June 6, 2013 because the bonds did not sell.”

Someone needs to ask the city.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Compassion

August 19, 2013

This post was sent to me recently:

A few weeks ago on a Sunday I witnessed something that reminded me that city ordinances have an effect on the least among us. I was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Sunland Park and Mesa Hills, it was a Sunday afternoon with the usual blistering conditions and not a hint of shade. An old woman was apparently panhandling on the island and two El Paso policemen had stopped their vehicle and were standing over her while she packed her belongings. The officers just stood over her with their arms folded not offering a hint of compassion as the woman finished packing and left the island to go someplace else. I thought of Courtney Niland and her unease at seeing drifters at a gas station near downtown. This lead to the policy of no panhandling except for city employees doing a fill the boot campaign. I got to see city policy in action and it made me feel bad. I pay my taxes without compliant and I do not make my living in the local government procurement trough, unlike the greed is good blog commentators at another site. I don’t know what we as a community can do for those less fortunate, but I can’t help but feel badly for not standing up to the powers that be. Before I moved here I lived in another community that has a far larger homeless population and the city built them a shelter and it seemed to lessen the amount of people in the streets.

I am left to wonder what would I do, if I was all alone in the world with no parental or spousal support network, and had lost my job? Would I take to the streets? I can’t honestly answer because I have never been in that situation. Maybe it would be a good thing if our elected officials spent more time with the sick, ugly, poor, and uneducated rather than the rich and beautiful? Could it be that would evoke some empathy within them?

Anonymous

1 Comment | City government, Personal Experiences With Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Facts can be inconvenient

August 19, 2013

The fellow over at refusethejuice recently wrote this:

The interesting thing about El Paso Speak is that they either have someone leaking executive session discussion to them or they are being advised directly by Four Names Allala.  They posted about some kind of “settlement” being offered.  That’s not public knowledge given I can’t find any reference to that anywhere and my request of information on that has been met with “executive session discussion items are not for public consumption.”  So, is El Paso Speak using personal email addresses or other means to influence city business?  Shouldn’t they be offering up whoever they are speaking with about official city business?  They are now the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the paragraph he asks “Shouldn’t they be offering up whoever they are speaking with about official city business?”

Another blog had previously posted:

He adds that asking “her to do so is not asking for a settlement, it’s asking her to surrender her quest for transparency”.

The blog is publicly posted and I would invite the author of refusethejuice to read it before jumping to conclusions.

Brutus

16 Comments | City government, Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »